I assume you mean to have tag names in addition to content-slot, and not as
opposed to content-slot?
On Mon, May 18, 2015 at 3:45 PM, Domenic Denicola d...@domenic.me wrote:
From: Dimitri Glazkov [mailto:dglaz...@google.com]
What do you think, folks?
Was there a writeup that explained how
Hi Ryosuke,
I want to start by thanking you, Ted, and Jan for taking the time to make
this proposal.
I read through the proposal, and had a quick question about how
redistribution should work with this slot concept.
I created a quick date-range-combo-box example that would take two date
inputs
Just to close the loop, filed
https://github.com/webcomponents/webcomponentsjs/issues/289 to track the
specific Polymer web component polyfill blocker.
On Tue, Apr 14, 2015 at 5:38 AM, Anne van Kesteren ann...@annevk.nl wrote:
On Wed, Apr 8, 2015 at 6:11 PM, Dimitri Glazkov dglaz...@google.com
and resolve the issues, or provide a flag
to override this behavior for Mozilla to use in testing.
Sorry for the grumbly note, we've tried very hard to make sure Polymer !==
Web Components in public discourse to keep people from conflating the two.
On Tue, Apr 14, 2015 at 12:29 PM, Daniel Freedman dfre
How would you style these shadow children? Would the main document CSS
styles affect these children?
On Thu, Mar 26, 2015 at 11:36 AM, Travis Leithead
travis.leith...@microsoft.com wrote:
From: Justin Fagnani [mailto:justinfagn...@google.com]
Elements expose this “shadow node list” via APIs
Why not put the `implicitAria` role on the element's prototype?
That way each instance can override with the attribute in a naive and
natural manner: `el.role = link`.
This would necessitate some getter/setter logic for the aria properties to
handle the something like the details case with
On Fri, Feb 14, 2014 at 5:39 PM, Ryosuke Niwa rn...@apple.com wrote:
On Feb 14, 2014, at 5:17 PM, Alex Russell slightly...@google.com wrote:
On Fri, Feb 14, 2014 at 3:56 PM, Ryosuke Niwa rn...@apple.com wrote:
On Feb 14, 2014, at 2:50 PM, Elliott Sprehn espr...@chromium.org wrote:
On Fri,
://codepen.io/anon/pen/tcjeh
On Tue, Dec 10, 2013 at 2:58 PM, Enrique Moreno Tent
enriquemorenot...@gmail.com wrote:
Thank you all! Finally I understand how it works :)
I made a small pen to illustrate this better
http://codepen.io/dbugger/pen/Hyihd
On 1 December 2013 23:35, Daniel Freedman dfre
And here's yet another version that should be usable in Stable Chrome and
Canary: http://codepen.io/anon/pen/ybEch
On Tue, Dec 10, 2013 at 4:08 PM, Daniel Freedman dfre...@google.com wrote:
I've updated your pen with the other minor syntax changes that have
occured in Chrome Canary:
@host
I've been thinking through the implications of this auto shadow proposal,
and I'm glad people are seeing the utility of template, but I don't think
this feature would see much use.
Developers want data-binding, and the auto cloning template does not give
them a favorable timing model.
They want
::content is behind the Experimental Web Platform Features chrome flag,
along with the unprefixed createShadowRoot.
On Fri, Nov 29, 2013 at 6:00 AM, Enrique Moreno Tent
enriquemorenot...@gmail.com wrote:
I have actually have gotten to work with :-webkit-distributed(p) but as
I read it has
I don't see this solution scaling at all.
Imports are a tree. If you have any import that includes any other import,
now the information about what tags to wait for has to be duplicated
along every node in that tree.
If a library author chooses to make any sort of all-in-one import to
reduce
On Wed, Nov 20, 2013 at 9:51 AM, John J Barton
johnjbar...@johnjbarton.comwrote:
Another alternative:
First let's agree that Souder's example must block:
link rel=import href=import.php
...
div id=import-container/div
script
var link = document.querySelector('link[rel=import]');
var
On Wed, May 1, 2013 at 11:49 AM, Ryosuke Niwa rn...@apple.com wrote:
On Apr 30, 2013, at 12:07 PM, Daniel Freedman dfre...@google.com wrote:
I'm concerned that if the spec shipped as you described, that it would
not be useful enough to developers to bother using it at all.
I'm concerned
I'm concerned that if the spec shipped as you described, that it would not
be useful enough to developers to bother using it at all.
Without useful redistributions, authors can't use composition of web
components very well without scripting.
At that point, it's not much better than just leaving
The spec you're looking for is
https://dvcs.w3.org/hg/webcomponents/raw-file/tip/spec/components/index.htmlwhich
defines link rel=component href=..
On Fri, Mar 15, 2013 at 7:07 AM, Mike Kamermans niho...@gmail.com wrote:
Hey all,
I searched the archive at
16 matches
Mail list logo
